President Bush throws more matches at the Middle East
President Bush in his Palestinian announcement today pushed down softly on the accelerator of a failed Middle East policy. The President continued to base his policy on deepening the division among Palestinians, on pre-conditions to a two-state solution, and on an unwillingness to outline his own parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian endgame deal. Even the $190 million dollars of money pledged to the new PA government is mostly a repackaging of old commitments.
In most respects today was a rehash of his speech five years ago, albeit under less propitious circumstances. That speech encouraged a regime change that eventually (and one imagines inadvertently) brought Hamas to power – the new speech may well drive Palestinian politics towards a period of even greater chaos that could create a space for al-Qaeda look-a-likes to gain a foothold.
The President continued to mistakenly conflate Hamas with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and, in so doing, almost guarantees the failure of his approach. In Iraq American policy is belatedly focusing on internal political reconciliation, but in Palestine it is still, sadly, all about deepening divisions.
The two-state solution that the President claims to support will need to deliver basic security and have legitimacy on both sides in order to have a chance of being sustainable. That cannot be based on an irreconcilable Palestinian political division. Clearly, there is a discomfort level within the administration regarding this approach as witnessed by the leak from intelligence sources in today’s Washington Post, claiming that relying on Abbas-Fayyad cannot work. The leak came from people, who presumably cautioned against giving this speech.
The President managed to list a full seven Hamas “must do” pre-conditions, rather than the traditional three. Dividing the region into extremists and moderates may sound nice, neat, and tidy in a speech, but on the ground there is a huge grey area that the President apparently refuses to acknowledge. As with elsewhere in the region, this detachment from Palestinian reality makes for bad choices and destabilizing actions.
The one possibly new announcement of a meeting in the Fall to be convened by Secretary Rice actually sounds like little more than a repeat of the London conference on Palestinian reform of January 2003. US officials have admitted that so far none of the neighboring countries have signed up for the conference. Indeed, in his speech, the President outlined four pre-conditions for attendance. One of those – that participants recognize “Israel’s right to exist” will very likely be dropped, or at least massaged, given that not even Egypt and Jordan with their peace treaties with Israel ever accepted this formulation, let alone the Saudis or other Arab States. The President’s ask from the Israeli side is minimal, consisting of realizing previous commitments, including those made on outposts and settlements from a 2004 letter that the US failed to follow up on.
Noteworthy was that even the Fatah-controlled Palestinian TV stations did not carry the speech live, suggesting that they hardly saw this as a great boost to their cause.
President Bush, contrary to the expectations of some optimists, chose not to use this speech to outline his own, more detailed, parameters for a peace deal. He dropped hints regarding the territorial issue, such as “mutually agreed adjustments,” but refused to explicitly refer to the 1967 lines or to offer any guidance on Jerusalem or refugees.
The administration’s commitment to reform and democracy ring even more hollow, given the recent measures taken by the new Ramallah government that they so favor. Military courts have been established in the West Bank to replace civilian courts, a progressive NGO law has been overturned, Hamas-affiliated persons have been imprisoned without due process, and the entire legality of the Ramallah government itself, is questionable.
The Arab states are called upon to make confidence building gestures towards Israel and this is likely to become a fruitless and unrealistic focus of upcoming diplomatic activity.
The President also appears to be flying solo again and eschewing multilateralism. For although he refers to working with the Quartet partners, his approach on dividing the Palestinians is not shared by most EU-states (see last week’s letter of all ten Mediterranean Foreign Ministers), the Russians, and it seems even the UN Secretary-General. Finally, in a hint that bodes ill for Iraq and Lebanon, too, the President makes no attempt to bring Syria into the peace process.
So, it’s more of the same with even less chance of success.
J. McCutchen
July 16, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, the traditional end-of-second-term push for Middle East peace.
If anything is going to be done there it will be the way Carter did it, balls out, willing to sacrifice your presidency, but committed to getting it done to a degree that makes it obvious to all sides you aren't fucking around. No president since Carter has been willing to do that, and it's about 6 years late for Bush to try. This is theatre.
Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.
July 16, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Luigi:
I was thinking about that second half of the second term scramble for legacy via peacemaker approach that Bush now shows signs of experimenting with. There are, of course, structural incentives for taking such an approach when you are the lame duck because you don't have to worry about pleasing any powerful voting bloc or lobbying organizations.
That said, what is Bush thinking? Does he honestly believe that the process will move forward by paying lip service to Fatah and only to Fatah? It makes no sense. If George Bush is serious about making peace, he must search, as folks like veteran I-P negotiator Aaron Miller insist, to find a way to bring all necessary and indispensable parties to the table, and that means Hamas.
To me, that doesn't mean looking the other way and ignoring anything Hamas' military wing does or does not do, but it does mean thinking of creative ways to make it palatable for Hamas to want a seat at the table, and for Israel and Fatah to accept that Hamas has a constituency and is entitled to a seat.
This is no simple task, but that's what real presidential leadership is all about: making tough decisions and taking the lead when necessary.
The toothpaste is out of the tube of the Bush Administration; why can't he just be a mensch at this point?
July 16, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're so right.
Setting impossible conditions to divide the "good" from the "bad" is consistent with Bush administration policy. Poor kids can't get government subsized health care because that violates free market principles. So punish them.
In the Palestinians' case Bush punishes all Palestinians for the policies of Hamas (who he, through free elections helped bring to power).
He belatedly supports Fatah for what reason now? To prolong the conflict? Fighting fire with fire ensures the destruction of Gaza and the West Bank. Bush the inhumnitarian.
The real reason for his setting impossible conditions of course, is to reinforce divisions that will (falsely) justify attacking Iran. Israel's just installed Nobel Peace Prize winner Perez as President. Bush must make sure this conciliator has no chance with Palestinian/Israeli conflict resolution. With Peres in office it may be harder to enlist Israel as a proxy aggressor against Iran.
July 16, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
someone should explain to Mr. Levy that Bush DID NOT create the divisions in Palestinian society. If anyone did -- it was Yasser Arafat, who was a master at playing every side against the middle -- keeping himself on top. These divisions existed long before Bush took office, just as divisions in Iraq existed long before we invaded. They were also the reason Arafat never made peace with Israel, because he knew it would trigger a Palestinian civil war.
There are two camps in Palestine now (as there have always been): those who are tired of conflict, war, and oppression, and those who want to continue to wage war, until Israel magically disappears. The latter group doesn't even want to bother with negotiations over a state. So, we're supposed to force them to the table? Bush is supposed to outline what a resolution should look like for the two parties? The illogic of that goes without comment.
Hamas and Hezbollah are nothing more than the Islamic version of the Skinheads and the KKK. The patina of legitimate resistance doesn't fool anybody. Hezbollah, for example, laid down and surrendered to the Syrian occupation of their country and political domination for decades. Some brave resistors.
What's interesting is that Levy would revile these hate groups in our country (and rightfully so) but he can't bring himself to muster up the same condemnation abroad. This adds up to a perspective that lacks focus and consistency.
July 16, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook:
I am very sensitive to what you are saying about Hamas as a partner. I have very little trust for Hamas as an organization and absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for its stated intentions to destroy Eretz Y'srael.
But these are the big leagues that we're playing in, and, as I see it only two things can happen that will lead to peace:
1. Hamas supporters abandon Hamas because they see that the U.S. and Israel are giving carrots to Fatah; or
2. Hamas and its supporters become convinced that negotiations with Israel and recognition of the Jewish State are the only way that they can ultimately fulfill analogous Palestinian aspirations.
Which option is more likely to occur? I say the second, albeit the odds ain't great. But the odds of attaining anything with the current Fatah-only approach of the Bush Administration has no chance whatsoever of succeeding IMO.
There are many historical examples of successful peace settlements between adversaries. In almost every instance, I submit, the adversaries were not friends before or after the resolution.
Bruce
P.S. Last Friday, MJ linked to the creative peace proposal put forth by ME expert Jerome Segal of the University of Maryland. It presumes a role for Hamas in a multi-layered process and is fascinating in its detail. I'll try and link to it here but assert continued luddite status on all things computer-like. http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jul/13/america_and_israels_endless_hypocrisy
Daniel, I would love to read your thoughts on Segal.
July 16, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook - You are correct their are divisions in Palestine and they have been there for decades. There are deep divisions in Israel also, between those who would give up the settlements for peace and those who still hope to expand Eretz Israel further than today's borders. So What. Name me a society that doesn't have these kind of political divisions. Look at our own country.
In Iraq we talk to Sunni insurgents and Shia militias. They certainly are as militant and bloody as Hamas and Hezballah. If you want peace you have to eventually end up talking to the enemy. In Iraq we are trying to reconcile implacable enemies - the Sunni and Shia. Yet in Israel we are trying to divide Fatah and Hamas. Israel can't make peace with just one political faction - it must make peace with the Palestinian people.
July 16, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Expect a swerve.
Bush's peace initiative comes out of nowhere. Indeed, it comes from a man who has had a policy of ignoring the Palestinian issue for seven years, or for supporting or pushing Israel into its most excessive behaviour. The result has been more polarisation every which way. How then do we justify this deathbed conversion?
Not only is it uncharacteristic and contrary to previous history, it also betrays evidence of lack of planning... Condoleeza Rice dumped her African mission to work on this? This seems to suggest that the initiative is both radical and unforseen, and has upset existing agendas, schedules and plans.
That hardly seems like an organized or thoughtful approach. How successful can such a half baked haphazard spontaneous approach be?
There is no discernible exterior event to trigger such a radical change. Assad hasn't visited Jerusalem. Perez hasn't gone to Damascus. Hamas remains in control of Gaza, and Abbas continues to rule haphazardly in the West Bank. All the geopolitics, bad as they are, seem stable. No clear opportunities have opened up.
So what are we to make of this? An Administration which has been relentlessly consistent in its policies and attitudes suddenly throwing them both to the wind for no discernible reason and venturing on some radical doomed quest for peace antithetical to everything it's stood for?
You're being lied to. It's a game. A swerve. A dodge. A con.
There's a deeper goal in mind, and the failure of this peace initiative, a peace initiative designed to fail, will move that deeper goal forward.
Be afraid, boys and girls.
July 16, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not looking in the right place.
This isn't coming out of Palestine, it's coming out of the Bush administration.
July 16, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Messrs Levy and Rosenberg:
Please provide us with the name, address, phone number, fax number or e-mail address of a single Hamas leader who has indicated any interest in concluding a peace treaty--not a cease fire agreement but a peace treaty--with Israel under any circumstances, including the total withdrawal of IDF personnel and settlers from every inch of the West Bank.
July 16, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 16, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
...including the total withdrawal of IDF personnel and settlers from every inch of the West Bank.
Provide us with the name, address, phone number, fax number or email address of the Israeli government official who has offered this action and can enforce this 'retreat'.
July 16, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are correct, but the problem is there are at least 4 separate militant organizations that we know of operating in Gaza and the West Bank -- all with their own agendas and foreign policy.
Negotiations between Israel and Egypt worked, because Egypt enforced the treaty which was deeply unpopular with many Egyptians. The prospects for a similar result in Gaza are slim, making any treaty worthless. The will of the people is very difficult to discern in these areas when Hamas exerts a great deal of pressure and intimidation against dissent.
post-WW I Ireland is the historical example I believe will play out in Gaza. Michael Collins signed the deal leaving 6 counties in English hands, and a bloody civil war erupted over the unpopular treaty. There will be a pretty significant civil war in Palestine, unless you have a radical change of thinking and militias voluntarily disarming. History, tragically, has a way of repeating itself, and it will do so again in Gaza.
July 16, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron figured it out very well. This is another fake action by the Cheney administration. People are beginning, finally, to understand that al Qaeda represents a microscopic threat to our country compared to that posed by the Cheney administration. One way to fix that little problem is to make an al Qaeda that is a threat. If this initiative by the Cheney administration works correctly, we will have a potent al Qaeda in Palestine, and it will be aligned with Iran. Then, the attack on Iran can proceed.
Maybe sometime in late 2008 we can seriously think about starting impeachment hearings?
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 16, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to burst the scintillating analysis, Val, but you're not paying attention to what is going on.
The external event prompting this change is Lebanon. Assad warned all Syrian civilians out of Lebanon by today -- which means there is trouble a brewing. He also apparantly gave Katushya rockets to radical militants to use against the Lebanese army, and he is absolutely determined to shut down the UN Hariri tribunal and the Lebanese government that backs it. Peaceful Hezbollah demonstrations didn't do the job. The next steps are ominous. Assad absolutely does not want Lebanese elections slated for Sep to happen.
Ahmadenejad is meeting with Assad Thurs., and no doubt they will discuss how to shut down this Arab peace delegation visiting Israel, which Iran viciously opposes.
Arab regimes fear an Iranian-backed coup in Lebanon, and so does Bush. They're racing against events on the ground.
July 16, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hon. Shimon Peres
President,State of Israel
Jerusalem
Israel
When you get the name of somebody in Hamas who can make a peace deal stick, let us know.
July 16, 2007 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been watching that situation. It's not clear that it's going to amount to anything. Bottom line:
* Israel is carrying massive military exercises and troop build ups in Gaza. This is under the guise of SOP training exercises.
* Syria is interpreting this as prelude to an invasion, and going into defensive mode, deploying its forces to alert, moving them towards the Lebanon/Golan frontier. To the Israeli's, this is provocative behaviour, suggesting that the Syrians are up to something.
* Hezbollah has fully rearmed, something which Israel blames Syria for. This may explain why Israel has undertaken its military exercises in the Golan, a means of posturing and low level threats.
* As part of the continuing exchange of low level threat behaviour, Assad is pulling his people out of Lebanon. This may imply that Assad believes that Israel is going to be launching another strike at Lebanon.
* Meanwhile, Lebanon's ongoing constitutional crisis remains at an impasse, but none of the constituents are actually interested in seeing a war.
* Current crisis of violence involves the Lebanese army shelling a Jihadist radical group which had funding by the United States but whose real alignment is probably more towards Osama, which is based in and has been terrorising a Palestinian refugee camp. Syria is not involved with this in any sense. Their Lebanese allies are Hezbollah and Christian militants.
* The notion of an Iranian backed coup, at this point, seems unlikely in Lebanon. The notion of a Syrian backed coup is only a little bit less unlikely. Certainly pulling Syrian personnel out of Lebanon is not indicative of preparation for a coup.
So, the bottom line is that there's been a fair bit of talk about a new Syria/Israel War, but I don't see a lot of concrete moves that way.
Syria clearly doesn't want a war, for the simple reason that it would be creamed. It's armed forces are competent, but they're undermanned, underequipped, undertrained, numerically inferior and most of their weapons systems are short on ammunition and spare parts and two or three generations behind Israeli weapons systems.
To make their situation worse, look at a map. Damascus is not far away, and there are a whole bunch of roads and highways going straight to it. The city is largely indefensible, as are other principle Syrian cities.
So there's no question in Syria's mind how such a war will go. The very best that they could expect would be to fight a defensive action and take billions upon billions of dollars in damage that they can't afford.
For Israel, while they might be confident of an outcome, there are also real questions about the financial costs and damages such a war would inflict. If Hezbollah was able to severely disrupt life in Israel with its comparatively harmless Katyusha's... well, Syria has presumably lots more missiles, its missiles are bigger and with more range. So knocking down Syria would not be without cost. And frankly, there's no good reason to incurr that bill.
There's also the collateral issue that a Syria war would bring Iran into it, likely against Iraq, and thereafter a dangerous and unpredictable escalation every which way.
Bottom line is that right now, vis a vis, Syria, Lebanon and Israel, no one is happy with the status quo, but no one is motivated to risk changing it.
July 16, 2007 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bslev, even if Bush had the will to be a mensch, I fear he lacks the capability. I just don't see how a man marked by such meagre imagination, wisdom, and competence -- a man who failed to rise even to the far more modest challenge of Katrina -- could ever lead the Israelis and Palestinians to peace.
July 16, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another good piece on how Israel blew it by Aaron Miller, one of the US negotiators at Camp David. Yesterdays LA Times.
Note Miller's view that Arafat was the partner for peace who had the authority to deliver it, and succeeded in doing it. (Remember no terrorism for 3 years from 9/97-9/2000) thanks to Arafat-Israeli security cooperation.
July 16, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush isn't the only one thinking of ways to rescue a legacy. Blair begins his tenure as the EU's mideast envoy tomorrow. Haaretz reports that Blairs task will be to "establish Palestinian institutions as a basis for the future Palestinian state," according to an article today.
So it appears that even the distant hope that the EU might offer an alternative to Bush's foolish approach to the I-P conflict now seems dead.
From Bush's speech today:
The cynicism of that last sentence is beyond belief.
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
July 16, 2007 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
bill clinton didn't think so -- he blames the failure of peace on arafat in his book
July 16, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
we'll see. i didn't say Syria would commit suicide by launching a war -- with Hezbollah more than willing to do it, they don't have to. That's why controlling Lebanon is so important to them. It's a buffer country to be used against Israel, when the situation dictates. If Paris talks break down and there is no political settlement, look for either a low-intensity conflict to erupt or talks of secession by Hezbollah and pro-Syria factions going into the Sep elections.
July 16, 2007 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...and rule"
You're insinuating the existence of a brilliant evil, while all there is is arrogance stupidity and wishful thinking. This is the same "plan" that gave us the Iraq debacle. And it's a debacle FOR US TOO.
We're less safe now than in 2001.
July 16, 2007 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting parallel, given variously that Collins forged a personal relationship with Churchill -- and what sadly happened to Collins.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 16, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the theory is that Hezbollah may at some time in the future, in the absence of a political settlement, undertake low intensity conflict or pseudo-secession? No special assignment of risk, no particular timetable.
Uh huh. I suppose anything's possible, but I don't see it as an imminent development in the geopolitics of the region.
July 16, 2007 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The real reason for his setting impossible conditions of course, is to reinforce divisions"
Or to continue to pursue a strategy where muslims are battling Al Queda, something I've been postulating all along (to turn muslim public opinion solidly against Al Queda.)
July 16, 2007 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Val, imagine if you were a Canadian cabinet member ( a scary thought) and you were forced to camp out in your Ottawa office, because if you drive home, you stand a good chance of a bullet in the head or worse. This is the situation in Beirut. Syria is holding a knife to the throat of this government. No one's going to be able to hold out against this type of pressure indefinitely, and the showdown is coming by Sep. If there is not another pro-Syrian President who will obey the Damascus edict elected, Syria will orchestrate a coup or simply declare, along with Hezbollah, a new state. Hezbollah already runs their section of the country anyway, and they've declared it off-limits to the Lebanese government. It's not a stretch just to make it all official.
July 17, 2007 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And as we all know, Clinton always speaks the truth
July 17, 2007 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a charter member of the Society of Friends to Luddites, gratitude for your gentleman nature, and in thanks for an interesting post, here are links
aMike
July 17, 2007 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does Bushit create chaos everywhere he touches on purpose? Or is that simply the consequence of his character disorder and mental instability?
He was given, and promptly ran into the ground, several oil companies. Did he do it because competent?
Bushit is a life-long loser, and this is his last chance to prove to the world he's actually the opposite. He won't succeed in changing his hostiry.
July 17, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Might well be, Brook, but given your track record, I'll remain skeptical.
A Syrian backed coup seems like a non-starter, since it would simply start up the old civil war again.
Nor does Hezbollah separatism seem plausible, given the distribution of Shiites.
There's nothing in Syria's overt actions which supports your thesis. Sorry. I think you may be buying into the axis of evil crud.
July 17, 2007 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton never speaks the truth?
July 17, 2007 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to think this is all part of some fall rollout of a plan for stepped up Middle East intervention. The Petraeus report is due out on September 15, and the Joint Chiefs are now planning their own report to be delivered around the same time. Meanwhile, the IAEA and Iran just concluded an agreement on several issues, including a safeguards approach for the Natanz reactor, which will be finalized in early August. With the possibility of an IAEA clean bill of health looming, the Bush administration could see their window of opportunity closing.
So, propose a fall meeting that you know in advance no one will attend, then blame various parties for sabotaging that meeting - and for contributing to the sorry conditions on the ground in Iraq which will be reported out at the same time.
As far as these supposed Israeli war preparations, I can't predict any details. But you have to believe that following the humiliation of the recent war in Lebanon, Israel must be determined to do something to get its mojo back before too much time has passed.
July 17, 2007 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
aMike:
Many thanks my friend, and I look forward to the day when I can post links that look as purdy as yours do.
Now, if we can get our fellow posters to read Segal and discuss, I submit that we can probably have the best darned discussion about the ME peace process that we have had in these parts since I first wet my beak here.
Bruce
July 17, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Now? I thought the "moment of choice" was when Palestinians had a free and fair election and voted in a plurality for Hamas."
So what that Palestinians elected a group/party who has a goal to destroy Israel ?
Does it mean that Israel should accept self-destruction because plurality of Palestinians want this?
July 17, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, we all agree that Israel should talk to Hamas.
The question is what you do, while talking to Hamas. Should Israel continie to apply pressure on Hamas while talking to Hamas?
This is the real question.
Should US and EU provide any financialassistance to Hamas while talking to Hamas?
July 17, 2007 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for pointing to yet another good piece on how Israel blew it.
Now for a change can you point to a single good piece on how Palestinians blew it :-)
"Remember no terrorism for 3 years from 9/97-9/2000) thanks to Arafat-Israeli security cooperation."
So why did Arafat start Second Intifada while negotiating with Barak team?
Looking back, was it a smart move for Palestinians or they blew it (Israeli children) for nothing? I think, at the end of they day, blewing Israeli children turned out was not a very good negotiating tool.
July 17, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean the Arak reactor. Natanz is a city where Iran enriches uranium, not a reactor site. The Arak reactor is still under construction, and legally Iran had no obligation to allow any inspections there - but they did.
Anyway, a "clean bill of health" from the IAEA won't make a difference. The Bush administration charges Iran with "intending" to use a civilian, IAEA-monitored, legal nuclear program to build weapons at some indefinite point in the future.
Spun like that, there is no way for anyone to have a "clean bill of health" because there's no way for Iran or the IAEA to prove that Iran could not do something in the indefinite future. Anything "could" happen, after all.
That's why you have to listen to the spin carefully. Note when they say that Iran is seeking "the capacity" to build bombs...the capacity, not the bomb. And of course our lovely media goes ahead and conflates that with actually building the bomb.
July 17, 2007 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm...it wasn't Arafat who "started the second intifadha" it was Sharon who decided to take a lovely little stroll, which was specifically designed to provoke.
July 17, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets see you actually offer a peace deal first.
July 17, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right. al Qaeda is the operative word. Wherever and whenever Bush can plant the seed of terror/al Qaeda he does - under instruction from his superiors, of course.
The American electorate is familiar with the name and the name instills fear and people don't usually change regimes in the middle of the threat of annihilation from a foreign entity. We do have an election coming up, don't we?
July 17, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good cop-bad cop works decently in national situations as well as the precinct.
Yes.
Yes.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 17, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
davai - While talking with Hamas, I have no problem using the talks to try to pressure them to modify their positions. That is the nature of negotiation. I assume Hamas will be trying to pressure Israel to modify it's positions.
While intially I would not provide direct assistance to Hamas, I would hope that negotiations would lead in that direction. Hamas has something they want from Israel and the west -money - and Israel has something they want from Hamas - no more rockets.
Eventually, I believe Israel and Hamas must reach an agreement if there is ever going to be a permanent peace. Talk must be part of that process. The West Bank will never settle down as long as the situation in Gaza remains unchanged.
July 17, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dennis Ross (whom some around here mistakenly view as a moderate) was on Charlie Rose last night, and made the curiously contradictory suggestions that 1) Israel should continue to supply Hamas with humanitarian aid, and should reassure them on that point AND 2) that Israel should consider cutting off electricity and water to Gaza, if Hamas doesn't abide by their requirements.
Isn't cutting off water to an occupied population contrary to the requirements of the Geneva conventions? Not to mention that to a large degree it's the Palestinian's water in the first place. Oh, and don't forget that it was Israel that bombed the one electric plant in Gaza back in 2006. You know, the Gaza electrical plant that supplied 50% of the electricity in the Gaza strip, but was entirely wiped out by the bombing. (Think carefully about the effect of such an action on medical services, water and sewage systems and food refrigeration in the Gaza strip, and remember that this was purely civilian infrastructure.) I guess Ross just "forgot" those little details.
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group
July 17, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...including the total withdrawal of IDF personnel and settlers from every inch of the West Bank. "
emet18 - I have followed Israeli politics for decades and I am unaware of Peres ever offering EVERY INCH of the west bank. Peres has offered a lot of compromises but EVERY INCH is no where close to anything he has put on the table.
July 17, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, yes. The deal pertains to Natanz, so it is the enrichment site.
July 17, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Palestinians can be provoked to start a major war by "a lovely little stroll", what's the point of making peace with them?
July 17, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Segal writes,
The substantial vulnerability to Segal's process is that it recognizes a degree to which the Palestinian Authority has an effect on the circumstances of the situation. This runs contrary to the prevailing narrative insisting that only Israel (as occupier) has any measurable effect on the circumstances in the situation.
For example, consider any discussion regarding the cause of the second intifada. It is commonly accepted that the al-Aqsa intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon's hike around the Temple Mount/Haram el-Sharif. However, the suggestion that Palestinian leadership would have led more responsibly by responding to Prime Minister Barak's proposal instead of the opposition party's campaign stunt is routinely and summarily dismissed.
If mediation efforts on the part of disinterested third parties prove capable of overcoming the diplomatic orthodoxy sustaining the notion that only Israel's actions and choices have consequences within the circumstances of the situation, then an approach like Segal's could be viable.
July 17, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm...bullshit. In December 2000 Imad Falouji, the PA Communications Minister stated in a speech that the Intifada "was carefully planned since the return of (Palestinian President) Yasser Arafat from Camp David negotiations rejecting the U.S. conditions."
Nothing to do with Sharon. Just the standrad M.O. of Arafat - using violence whenever it suited his ends despite signing agreements that he would not use violence.
July 17, 2007 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No the deal pertains to Arak, not Natanz. Natanz has always been under IAEA inspection. The Iranians had not allowed inspections of the Arak reactor since it was still under construction, and was therefore not legally subject to inspections. The hardliners in Iran had limit Iran's cooperation with the IAEA to only what was strictly legally required and no more, as a way of showing themselves "playing hardball." Now, the Iranians have reached a deal to allow an inspection anyway.
July 17, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, it could be because even as the Israelis were talking peace, they were illegally expanding their settlements. Funny how you always try to insist that peace is impossible and its the palestinian;s fault ... hmmm... could it be because any real prospects of peace would undermine your Zionist ambitions to create Greater Israel?
Which brings us back to the question: How happy were you when Rabin was murdered, Davai?
July 17, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista:
Excellent observations as always.
The interesting feature is the presupposed "roadmap" (not the other roadmap, but Segal's) that anticipates a structured settlement over a relatively short period time. As such, for example, the first step is to agree on borders (with the exception of Jerusalem's division which comes later in the process), and thus if this is done to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, there is a built-in incentive on the part of the PA, hopefully buttressed by a population that is pleased to see concrete results, to enforce security obligations.
In short, each step of the process is a confidence-building measure (with obligations on both sides) that makes security enforcement more palatable and more realistic.
That's the theory anyway, I think.
July 17, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go with the usual Zionist propaganda.
So it was the Palestinains fault for not "responding to Prime Minister Barak's proposal"
You mean Barak's "Generous Offer" that would have reduced Palestine into ever-shrinking bantu-stans, the offer that even Israeli human rights organizations considered to be a joke (link)?
Yes how dare the palestinians not accept that offer! Obviously then, its all their fault that Israel has continued to expand their racist Apartheid settlements all along, without even slowing down.
July 17, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
because Bush is controlled by a cabal of Zi0nist who run the US's foreign policy with respect to the Mideast, and who don't want any peace but instead want to grab more and more land. That's why.
July 17, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's what you believe, then it would appear that the only logical conclusion is Endloesung.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 17, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev,
It hinges on a very big "if." From Oslo to Camp David, the postponement of certain so-called final status issues has been the Achilles heel of the entire process (and a good example why Sharon's campaign stunt was so deviously ingenius). I don't have much confidence that Jerusalem and refugees can be prioritized down from poltical sovereignty and border issues. Meanwhile, the Arab League delegation to Israel has already postponed its trip until the end of the month. I fail to see how the Arab establishment state-by-state can be compelled to deal with the refugee issue with any real sense of urgency in the context that seems to be required by Segal's outline.
I do not want to dismiss Segal's outline out of hand. There is plenty in it to applaud and endorse. The process has desperately needed to be goosed into higher gear for way too long already. But the urgency of the present situation seems to demand something more along the lines of an immediate multilateral adoption of the Geneva Accords, and until the principal parties are compelled or coerced to take that kind of significant action I'm afraid that Segal's recommendations will remain frustratingly academic.
July 17, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista:
I am not wedded to Segal's approach, but I am impressed with the effort he makes and am genuinely curious about whether such an approach could work.
Obviously, as you point out, there are big "ifs", the first and foremost being the unrelenting ability of extremists on both sides to upset the apple cart at critical times (e.g. the stroll by Sharon and the reaction thereto).
As to the Geneva Accords, I agree they reflect a framework for real peace, even though I confess to having a complete lack of understanding about how the "right of return" component works.
Thanks for playing this "let's try and be constructive" exercise. Who knows? Don't they say that even a chimpanzee, left to its own devices, will eventually type out a masterpiece?
July 17, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista.
"Meanwhile, the Arab League delegation to Israel has already postponed its trip until the end of the month."
The Arab League's Chairman Moussa has disavowed the delegates from Jordan and Egypt as representative of anything or anyone other than their respective countries.The Egytptian FM has echoed that stance:
"this is not a visit where the Arab League flag will be raised," echoing remarks made a day earlier by Amr Moussa, the chairman of the Arab League."
July 17, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
That is disappointing. AP reported only a week ago that Moussa said it was part of the Arab League mandated working group to facilitate the Riyadh peace iniative,
I wonder if there is there anyone out there still willing to argue that Israel rejects the peace initiative. Meanwhile, I'm ready to backslide and revisit my former opinion that the Arab League remains more interested in ultimatums and subterfuge than any so-called peace initiatives.
July 17, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista.
The proposed visit by the FMs of Jordan and Egypt (last week) was postponed due to Olmert's request and is rescheduled for July 25. Was Olmert rejecting the peace initiative?
The Egyptian FM said that the visit will not be under the flag of the Arab League "as a matter of principle".
There is a movement by Arab states away from US/Israeli policies, particularily in regard to the isolation of Hamas and unqualified support of Abbas. Egypt has done a complete 180 on the issue. Given that there are a slew of meetings scheduled in the near future with Condi, Arab FMs, the Quartet.....and the vague conference announced by Bush, perhaps the timing isn't right. Remember that Condi cancelled her visit to Israel, too.
The Saudis are key and there is speculation that they are disengaging from their formerly tight embrace of adminstration goals and policies in the region.
"Meanwhile, I'm ready to backslide and revisit my former opinion that the Arab League remains more interested in ultimatums and subterfuge than any so-called peace initiatives."
As long as you continue to unrealistically insist that the Arab League simply must meet your expectaions, your "backsliding" is a foregone conclusion. No big loss as it is, after all, your comfort zone.
July 17, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same true for all American presidents.
July 17, 2007 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"continie to apply pressure on Hamas "
What kind of pressure?
July 17, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hamas has something they want from Israel and the west -money "
Not at all. They are getting money from Iran.
They want to be able to get more advanced weapons to Gaza and try to take over West Bank.
What should Israel do to prevent this from happening?
July 17, 2007 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the solution for diabitis?
There is no cure. Not every problem has a solution/cure.
July 17, 2007 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was very sad:
1. He was a great Israeli leader.
2. I agreed at that time with him politically.
July 17, 2007 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is particularly bad with this Bush. The last Bush tried to stand up to the Zionists by threatening to end US aid to settlements.
Clinton was in the pocket of the Zionists. An AIPAC top official was recorded on the telephone, boasting about how Clinton had promised top-level positions to AIPAC-friendly people if AIPAC supported his election (link). And right after he was elected, Martin Indyk was picked out of AIPAC and rushed through his naturalization process and made into the Assistant Sec of State for Mideast Affairs, where he implemented the "Dual Containment" policy on Iran and Iraq (which suited Israel just fine) and eventually became the first Jewish US ambassador to Israel - but was briefly stripped of his security clearance when he was caught messing with secret info. (Al Kamen of the Wash Post reported on Indyk's questionable background(link))
I'll never forget how Clinton debased himself in front of the World Jewish Congress meeting, when he gave a speech, thanked Edgar Bronfman for preventing Conoco from entering into an oil contract that the Iranians had offered as a good faith gesture to the US, and then Clinton - the President of the United States of America - told Bronfman that he would need a job after he left office and hoped that Bronfman would remember him:
SOURCE: April 30, 1995 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS DINNER Grand Ballroom Waldorf-Astoria Hotel New York, New YorkOf course there was the whole scandal about an Israeli spy in the White House called Mega {link} too
July 17, 2007 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes what a lovely fella and "Great Israeli Leader" he was - the man who ordered his troops to literally break the bones of Palestinians as a usual course of conduct. Here, take a good look at what Rabin ordered here (link) - I know you love watching the Noble Purified Chosen Israelis beat Palestinians over the head with rocks. Its kinda like watching porn for you, isn't it? You must be so proud - verily thou art a light unto the nations.
And when Rabin signed the Oslo accords, what did the Rabbis call him? A moser (traitor) and rodef (pursuer) who deserved to die.
Israel and Israelis are sick. The smell of death deprivation and hypocricy will never be wiped off of them.
July 17, 2007 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The IAEA press release says that Natanz was part of the agreement.
July 17, 2007 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel and Israelis are sick."
Who is not sick nowdays?
July 17, 2007 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"EVERY INCH is no where close to anything he has put on the table."
So, do you insist that Israel "return"
The Western Wall ?
July 17, 2007 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
Fair enough. But the Arab League peace initiative does need the support of mooks like us in order to ultimately be taken seriously, doesn't it?
Show us the part where Olmert demotes the Arab League working group to just a couple of guys on a boondoggle. How serious can anyone take this "initiative" when it only takes four days for Amr Moussa to go from designating the FMs' working group "upon the request of the Arab committee of peace initiative," to "not representing the Arab group"? Your suggestion that Olmert's alleged request for the postponement should be taken as an Israeli rejection of the Arab League peace initiative while the removal of the Arab League seal of approval from its own mandated working group (on a matter of "principle"?!) is one of the clearer signs of the tragic groupthink apparently infecting the progressive community, insisting that the actions and choices of Israel and only Israel no matter how trivial have any effect on the circumstances of either the peace process or the overall conflict.
In Cairo last May, when the Arab League peace initiative's working group was designated, Israeli FM Tzipi Livni was there to invite them to Israel. It excited the Israeli media and electorate. Now the Arab League has issued a big "fuck you" to all that. But as long as it makes Bush look bad, we're all supposed to stand up and cheer in order to affirm our progressive bona fides? Wow....
July 18, 2007 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Davai, I'm not going to play your game of responding to continuous questions, and the backup of "well $FOO does it too." Israel is pressuring Hamas in ways it considers appropriate. Apparently, "bad cop" is the only way Israel, for reasons of ideology or politics, can deal with Palestinians. Why not keep doing what you are doing, since you are going to do it anyway? I have no influence on Israel's policies, but I do on American policies.
I don't expect much from either side, but external assistance to the elected government may be a carrot rather than a stick.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 18, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean by West Bank? Are you saying that's different than the West Bank in which Palestinians already live? If so, why prevent them from taking over their own land?
A not terribly bright Greek hijacker once hijacked an airliner and demanded it go to Thessaloniki. The crew complied, but pointed out that Thessaloniki was already their destination.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 18, 2007 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Israel and Palestine did as much together is the standard of care for diabetes, there would be little problem. First, it has to be recognized there is no single disease called diabetes [a single solution for issues between Israel and Palestine]. Type I diabetes is a disease in which the islet cells fail to produce insulin [guaranteed water rights?]. It is treated with insulin, and there are research approaches that may prevent it, or alternatively replace islet cells. Perhaps the equivalent is facilitating commerce.
Type II diabetes is a disease of insulin resistance [not acting as if any solution is possible]. It is treated with insulin or drugs that increase insulin production (sulfonylureas) [perhaps economic cooperation]. It is also treated with drugs that decrease insulin resistance, such as thiazolidinediones. [joint security work to deal with extremists, and defense against weapons]. Shall I extend this silly discussion to meglitinides, incretin analogues, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and DPP-4 inhibitors?
I am a diabetic. I deal with the disease and have its effects well-managed, although there is always room for improvement. I don't spend my time bitching about how impossible it all is, and I stay aware of new research initiatives.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 18, 2007 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying that Hamas is not as strong in West Bank as in Gaza, but they are trying to.
July 18, 2007 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So, do you insist that Israel "return"
The Western Wall?"
Davai - Of course not and that has not been a real point of contention. Like many Jews I applauded being able to go to the Western Wall in 1967. All I was doing is responding to emet18's contention that Peres was willing to give up every inch. He never did.
July 18, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
From their standpoint rather than Israel's, why should they not try? They certainly don't believe in historic Judea and Samaria, and are not going to. They have a constituency who wants action.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 18, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I don't have a problem with Hamas having a stated goal to destroy Israel.
I don't have a problem with Hamas trying to do Gazafication of West Bank and smuggle advance weapons in Gaza and West Bank.
I have a problem with people suggesting that Israel should help Hamas achive this goal for Israel's sake. (MJ, jdellel and the fellow comrades)
Your arguments are not based on what's good for Israel, so I don't have problems with your arguments.
July 18, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's true you're right - there was a minor deal with Natanz too but the main deal was over Arak.
In the case of Natanz, which is already under intensive IAEA inspections, the Iranians agreed to allow inspections of a facility where the centrifuge parts are stored - again, something that goes beyond their strict legal obligations.
July 18, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. The heavy water and plutonium facilities at Arak always struck me as more critical to bomb development than the centrifuge lines. AFAIK, every weapon that's miniaturized enough to be a plausible missile warhead is based on a plutonium implosion system, rather than uranium. Plutonium machining capabilities that can't be inspected are much more of a smoking gun than uranium centrifuges.
Ironically, some other capabilities, such as a hydrodynamic test facility, are far more smoking guns than anything IAEA can monitor. Such a facility doesn't necessarily need to have any radioactive materials at all, or perhaps DU. It consists of a test chamber where one can fire the high explosive implosion system of a bomb, while taking microsecond-interval X-ray photographs of how the metallic core is being compressed.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 18, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. The heavy water and plutonium facilities at Arak always struck me as more critical to bomb development than the centrifuge lines. AFAIK, every weapon that's miniaturized enough to be a plausible missile warhead is based on a plutonium implosion system, rather than uranium. Plutonium machining capabilities that can't be inspected are much more of a smoking gun than uranium centrifuges.
Ironically, some other capabilities, such as a hydrodynamic test facility, are far more smoking guns than anything IAEA can monitor. Such a facility doesn't necessarily need to have any radioactive materials at all, or perhaps DU. It consists of a test chamber where one can fire the high explosive implosion system of a bomb, while taking microsecond-interval X-ray photographs of how the metallic core is being compressed.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 18, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I confess to having a doubletake whenever I hear "spin" with respect to centrifuges. How else would they work? :-)
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 18, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't keep us in suspense. Did he make it to Thessaloniki? Did the Thessaloniki authorities give him asylum or was he extradited back to Greece? Did the minority (99%) greek population of Thessaloniki support their hero? Did he buy a vowel?
July 18, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the end of the incident, the Greek police apparently were laughing so hard that they had trouble taking him into custody, much less deciding whether they should take him to a hospital or jail. The former, for reasons you will understand, seemed more appropriate.
On being told they were in the air to Thessaloniki, he told the flight attendant not to confuse him, and started to say he had a knife...then said (in Greek) "Ooops. That's in my checked baggage."
He was fairly quiet until they landed, when he made suicidal threats, ended when he pulled out a crucifix and swallowed it. Unfortunately, he had neglected to remove the crucifix from the chain, so it stuck partially in his throat, not blocking it but putting him into paroxysms of coughing.
At this point, the police came aboard, were told the history, and then viewed the hijacker. You are Zorba the Cop. What is your next action? No, this was well before the Bush Administration, so you can't suggest that he be recruited as a security advisor. Perhaps he could be an aide to Senator Day?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 18, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has the Arab League given a specific explanation for its its decision to withdraw its sponsorship of the visit by the Jordanian and Egyptian FMs to Israel? Seems like a pretty major decision to transition on in such a brief period. I mean placing the Arab League's imprimatur on the visit in the first place was presumably the product of extensive deliberation by the member states.
July 18, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&id=13859652&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
"Pointing to the foreign influence in al-Qaida undermines support for the organization among nationalistically minded Iraqis, including some in insurgent groups that have broken with al-Qaida."
So we are setting traps in the middle east for Al Queda - Iraq was such a trap if this is true. Perhaps the W administration is hoping there will be an actual al queda group, not a look-a-like, in Palestine, where hamas will battle them, further eroding support for al queda and the caliphate idea, waging a psychological war against al queda. A counter jihad.
If you look at it objectively enough, you'll note that al queda is just as - probably more - imperial than the US/UK. There are some whiners that comment here at TPM who think we are the only entity with empire building tendencies, that al-queda is correct in their approach as they are only "reacting to our imperial policies" - as if they don't have imperial policies of their own. Iraq ought to throw us both out - both the US/UK and al-queda.
July 18, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see. You too are not willing to give up every inch.
July 18, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want to point out the folks who think Al Quaeda is correct in their approach?
July 18, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista aka "Mooksie".
" Your suggestion that Olmert's alleged request for the postponement should be taken as an Israeli rejection of the Arab League peace initiative while the removal of the Arab League seal of approval from its own mandated working group (on a matter of "principle"?!) is one of the clearer signs of the tragic groupthink apparently infecting the progressive community, insisting that the actions and choices of Israel and only Israel no matter how trivial have any effect on the circumstances of either the peace process or the overall conflict."
Er...my question to you was a joke (too sly of me?). Therefore, the remainder of your post premised on your humor-deprived assumptions is just so much piss into the wind.
As for the reversal of the Arab League, I haven't been able to find anything definative that answers that question.
Not that it would matter a whit to you as there are no acceptable reasons for the Arabs to pay attention to, say, their own national interests if they conflict with certain timetables and righteous-rules-of-behavior-for-Arabs in their dealings with Israel.
As for this silliness:
"But as long as it makes Bush look bad, we're all supposed to stand up and cheer in order to affirm our progressive bona fides? Wow...."
I'm not a "progressive". I'm an atheist with pagan impulses and think your lame attempts at guilt-tripping your target audience are transparent and quite amusing.
Carry on.
July 18, 2007 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me the chuckle at your penultimate two sentences, but I can only manage a "Hail Eris."
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 19, 2007 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"(Remember no terrorism for 3 years from 9/97-9/2000) thanks to Arafat-Israeli security cooperation"
Funny - That's what Bibi Netanyahu keeps on saying.
July 19, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to disappoint, but glad to amuse. The humor must have gone out of all this for me somewhere along the way. Carry on? No thanks. Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again.
July 19, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, Howard. I said pagan impulses, not Pagan impulses.
July 19, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of hope that you made all this up since it is really quite funny and would require imagination and skill. Of course, real life stupidity requires little imagination and skill but often produces the same results. So, I am forced to ask: How much of this is true?
July 19, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I confess that my imagination wasn't up to this. It popped up in an otherwise utterly serious discussion of airline security.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
July 19, 2007 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you in the final analysis Valdron, that if we withdraw, Al Queda has less of a reason for being.
And yes I should have edited out the "whiners" as it was not necessary. Suffice it to say as constructive criticism perhaps, that some posts do read as whining. And I doubt statements that read as whining would swing many voters to our side.
Rather than say, "were giving Osama exactly what he wants," which has an air of presumption and whining about it, why not say "if we withdraw, al queda has less of a reason for being." One focuses on making the current administration wrong. The other explains the next administration's strategy succintly.
IMO, we don't have to say anything to lower Bush's approval rating, and the associated approval ratings of Republicans in general, as Bush is doing this for us just through his incompetency. We always here folks say that they don't hear Democrats stating what it is they are going to do. Perhaps this is because of the exact point I've made above. There is a full year to change the perception of Democrats in this direction, I think it is enough time if everyone were on the same page.
(Granted you aren't running for office - so my critique is off target. Yet I think this is an important point for Democrats.
July 20, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink